BarkingUnicorn:Walmart's net profit for the past four quarters was $15.7 billion. Divide that by 2.2 million employees and you get about $7100 each. What percentage of that should go to employees?

Are you trying to make the argument that Walmart's profit margin is so small that they cannot afford to pay their employees living wages? Because that sounds to me like the description of a business model that must fail in the free market.

WhyteRaven74:ronaprhys: So, said dolt is making almost a dollar/hour more than minimum wage and is complaining.

Given her annual income, she should be complaining. A lot.

Why? She's being paid at the replacement wage for her area. What that means, just to be clear, is that employees are paid exactly what it'd cost to replace them with someone else and provide the same level of profit.

Spirit Hammer:Exactly.And the day that Wal*Mart doesn't have several hundred applicants for every job offered, when everyone knows what that pay is, is the day that they will start to raise their wages.I don't see that day in the near future.

A healthy economy, able to create middle class jobs, has a fair balance between workers and owners/management. Right now because of several factors: automation, offshoring, abundance of labor, workers are at a disadvantage. Nobody seems to know what to do about it or even agree that we should do anything about it.

jst3p:BarkingUnicorn: red5ish: Walmart is profitable enough to pay living wages to its employees, keeping them off the dole, but instead choose to pay less and to pocket the extra profit. Taxpayers subsidize their business model. I don't see how anybody who dislikes taxes could argue in favor of Walmart's business practices.

Walmart's net profit for the past four quarters was $15.7 billion. Divide that by 2.2 million employees and you get about $7100 each. What percentage of that should go to employees?

Enough so that their full time employees don't need food stamps for starters.

And how much is that? If we're ever going to get anywhere, we have to get down to specific numbers. It's not enough to say, "I feel Walmart should be able to afford it."

Silly Jesus makes the interesting argument that Walmart "subsidizes" government welfare by keeping people employed. I would add that Walmart subsidizes consumers by underpaying its employees, too.

You get cheap underwear by forcing people onto food stamps. Shame on you!

red5ish:DrewCurtisJr: red5ish: Nice hypothetical question, but not to the point. When Walmart's business plan depends on their employees being on government assistance then they are not a viable business.

Walmart's business plan is to pay as low as it can get away within the current job market. The fact that this amount is so low that many employees also qualify for government assistance is irrelevant.

How many hundreds of millions of dollars does Walmartsdo workers with no discernible skills cost taxpayers in government assistance to their employees each year? This is not irrelevant; it goes directly to my argument that Walmart's business model ispeople with no skills government subsidized.

You think that businesses should act as charities (paying employees more than they are worth) before the employee gets to the government teat. I think that employees should gain some skills before they start suckling at the government teat. This is the fundamental difference here. I blame the failure of a person, you blame the successful business.

actually Hormel was back to pretty solid production levels when WW2 hit. Just that when it did they started adding shifts to produce even more. Hormel didn't need WW2, it was just prepared for that bit of fortune because of decisions they made when things were bad.

DrewCurtisJr:That is a good point but I don't think the stores serve the same demographic.

interestingly they don't, yet when you compare prices there's no real difference. A huge swimming pool sized jar of mayo costs as much at Costco as at Sam's Club, so it's not the prices doing it. It's the image of the stores. And part of that goes back to how Costco treats employees.

clowncar on fire:WhyteRaven74: Silly Jesus: Do I think you have the social responsibility to me to give me money because I have less than you? Nope.

What about a social responsibility to make sure someone working for you isn't out groveling for government benefits which in turn cost other people money?

Ed_Severson: All that matters is that these employees are complaining about something and then acting in direct opposition to the basis of their complaint,

They've been showing up for work and asking for hours that have never materialized. When plan A doesn't work, it's time for plan B.

And by plan B, I assume you mean take their skillset to another employer that does have a need for this skillset and offer more than minimum wage? Or did you mean Plan B where they wave those tiny fists in the air as they watch their jobs hired out to someone else who finds the terms of employment to be acceptable.

The problem is: until there is noone else out there willing to step into your shoes, your employer holds all the cards. Unless you have a needed skillset, you are pretty much screwed. That's the only thing one should expect out of a minimum wage job- you learn the skillset in which you are paid for. You want to increase the pay, you need to move on, adopting more skillsets along the way. Eventually you build a portfolio of different skill sets (rather than hopping from one cashier job to the next) that you can approach an employer with and be able to nogotiate a more acceptable wage as you now have more to offer.

I have been employed 15 years with the same company. I make a point of attending advanced and service classes at least twice a year or as the are offered. I'm probably underpaid as my aquired skillset is greater than my required skillset, however I give up those few dollars in wages for an exchange of secure employment. Should I be forced to move on, I have no doubts about having the skills required to fill a similar position. At that time I would probably be in a posi ...

red5ish:Silly Jesus: Have you given thought to the fact that your real problem may be with our welfare system rather than Wal*Mart?

Yes, I did think about that. I came to the conclusion, and so will you, that without government assistance Walmart's employees would be so impoverished they would be homeless or starving or both, so the problem goes back to Walmart's business practices.

red5ish:Silly Jesus: Have you given thought to the fact that your real problem may be with our welfare system rather than Wal*Mart?

Yes, I did think about that. I came to the conclusion, and so will you, that without government assistance Walmart's employees would be so impoverished they would be homeless or starving or both, so the problem goes back to Walmart's business practices.

So no personal responsibility whatsoever on the part of the person with no skills or discernible value other than breathing?

jst3p:BarkingUnicorn: red5ish: Walmart is profitable enough to pay living wages to its employees, keeping them off the dole, but instead choose to pay less and to pocket the extra profit. Taxpayers subsidize their business model. I don't see how anybody who dislikes taxes could argue in favor of Walmart's business practices.

Walmart's net profit for the past four quarters was $15.7 billion. Divide that by 2.2 million employees and you get about $7100 each. What percentage of that should go to employees?

Enough so that their full time employees don't need food stamps for starters.

So if they took all their profits (nothing to stock holders, owners or anything) and divided it equally to their employees, then each would make an extra $150 or so a week.

clowncar on fire:Recent cellphone trick? Ask the provider if the company you work for gets a discount. Your employer often keeps this information on the lowdown, presumeably so that they can negotiate contracts. Ask you provider instead. Found out that the provider I had been with for the last 4 years had a 12% discount available to those who asked for it. Gave myself a tiny raise in the process as I now pay 12% less for basic service.

This is a good trick - what I've found, though, is that this discount changes yearly. Each year Mrs ap Rhys and I check and sometimes my company has a better deal, sometimes it's hers. I think we're up to 20 or 25% at this point. Of course, my company has now mandated that, if you want a mobile, they'll reimburse you either $40 (corporate) or $75 (field) towards your plan. Obviously, this doesn't pay for the phone plus the plan, but young people are stupid and they're already paying for this service, so they see this as a discount. Older crotchety types such as myself see this for what it is - a successful attempt to pass costs on to the employees.

Silly Jesus:I blame the failure of a person, you blame the successful business.

A business that doesn't pay employees enough to avoid welfare is not particularly successful. Sam Walton knew this. It's why when he was around Walmart treated their employees better than they do now. Sam was of the ''You put in a day's work for me, which I need, and I will make sure to provide for your needs". When Sam was around Walmart actually had one of the best systems for raises around as far as how often they happened and how much they were.

red5ish:Silly Jesus: Have you given thought to the fact that your real problem may be with our welfare system rather than Wal*Mart?

Yes, I did think about that. I came to the conclusion, and so will you, that without government assistance Walmart's employees would be so impoverished they would be homeless or starving or both, so the problem goes back to Walmart's business practices.

What segment of minimum wage employees are still living at home with their parents, working a second job for a little holiday scratch, or looking for a little spending money while attending college, where being homeless and starving is not likely to be an issue as a result of choosing a minimum paying job. Let's remove these from the count and decide whether we really have an issue or just manufactured rage.

actually Hormel was back to pretty solid production levels when WW2 hit. Just that when it did they started adding shifts to produce even more. Hormel didn't need WW2, it was just prepared for that bit of fortune because of decisions they made when things were bad.

I'd like to see something proving that. I've done a quick bit of looking and can't find much that backs your position. I'm not saying it's not true, but I'd like to see the facts. Pretty solid doesn't necessarily equate to making it long term, either. It could, but as I stated, I want actual numbers.

Bippal:Once you do start working somewhere like Walmart, maybe you do feel like you deserve treated better. Maybe you do realize that they do need you and your coworkers. They can't just fill every job with random warm bodies. Maybe most, but not all.

If Walmart couldn't get qualified employees at the wages they're paying, they'd be forced to raise the pay. Since that's not the case, they won't. It's mind boggling to me that you're trying to put the blame on Walmart instead of the people who have chosen to tread water through life as an unskilled worker.

clowncar on fire:Let's remove these from the count and decide whether we really have an issue or just manufactured rage.

the more people, regardless of how much they work, you have being paid poorly the less the economy grows over time. What this means is that those who aren't poorly paid will find it harder to have their own incomes grow since without economic growth their own employers won't see much in the way of revenue growth.

Maybe you should look at the actual definition you provide - it's not formally defined, except in the company handbook. As noted in this very thread, the Walmart goal is 32 hours per week - 4 8-hour days. So, and I'm thinking outside of the box here, you should actually do some research prior to posting.

Spirit Hammer:jst3p: BarkingUnicorn: red5ish: Walmart is profitable enough to pay living wages to its employees, keeping them off the dole, but instead choose to pay less and to pocket the extra profit. Taxpayers subsidize their business model. I don't see how anybody who dislikes taxes could argue in favor of Walmart's business practices.

Walmart's net profit for the past four quarters was $15.7 billion. Divide that by 2.2 million employees and you get about $7100 each. What percentage of that should go to employees?

Enough so that their full time employees don't need food stamps for starters.

So if they took all their profits (nothing to stock holders, owners or anything) and divided it equally to their employees, then each would make an extra $150 or so a week.

Sounds fair.

And if Walmart takes a loss, should each employee be billed?

Wups.My bad.I mathed it wrong.(I got distracted by beer, and The Walking Dead)The quoted profit was for a quarter, and I figured it for a year.So each employee would get an extra $600 a week.That's better.I'd take it.

WhyteRaven74:Silly Jesus: I blame the failure of a person, you blame the successful business.

A business that doesn't pay employees enough to avoid welfare is not particularly successful. Sam Walton knew this. It's why when he was around Walmart treated their employees better than they do now. Sam was of the ''You put in a day's work for me, which I need, and I will make sure to provide for your needs". When Sam was around Walmart actually had one of the best systems for raises around as far as how often they happened and how much they were.

Silly Jesus:red5ish: DrewCurtisJr: red5ish: Nice hypothetical question, but not to the point. When Walmart's business plan depends on their employees being on government assistance then they are not a viable business.

Walmart's business plan is to pay as low as it can get away within the current job market. The fact that this amount is so low that many employees also qualify for government assistance is irrelevant.

How many hundreds of millions of dollars does Walmarts do workers with no discernible skills cost taxpayers in government assistance to their employees each year? This is not irrelevant; it goes directly to my argument that Walmart's business model is people with no skills government subsidized.

You think that businesses should act as charities (paying employees more than they are worth) before the employee gets to the government teat.

They have skills, very low skills, but still skills.

You say paying them a "living wage" is charity, but I disagree. If a company needs someone 40 hours a week, be it scrubbing toilets, or saying "hello" to people walking in the door they should be willing to pay them enough to live.

Right now Walmrt is the charity because they are getting a stable (up until now) work force by taxpayer subsidization.

I think that employees should gain some skills before they start suckling at the government teat. This is the fundamental difference here. I blame the failure of a person, you blame the successful business.

Nice little catch-22 there. The govt should help you out once you have skills. But until you do have skills, the govt shoudl say, fark you?

How do you propose someone who can't join the military and comes from a poor family gain those skills?

MsToad:"Seattle Walmart worker Sara Gilbert said she had taken the decision to go on strike to protest the fact that she could only make around $14,000 dollars a year. Despite working as a customer service manager, she said, her family remained reliant on food stamps and other benefits. "I work full time at the richest company in the world," she said."

Minimum wage in Washington State is $9.04 per hour. If she is actually working full-time, she has to be making at least $18,803 per year. And that's if she's only making the same wage as a manager as the guy cleaning the toilets.

This source (a local paper, not a UK rag) says nothing about her annual income or working "full time". No source that I can find states what she means by "full time." IDK if that's Gilbert's obfuscation or the media's.

Even if she's working 40 hours a week, her family would still qualify for government aid. Poverty level for a family of 7 is $34,930.

DrewCurtisJr:I'm saying it is irrelevant because even if the government didn't subsidize the healthcare and food stamps of its employees the wages would be the same, the employees would just be more miserable. The wages are more of a reflection of the conditions of the labor market, when a Walmart opens 5k people apply for 400 positions. Without any leverage wages aren't going to improve.

Would they be more miserable or would they be homeless and/or starving? That aside, it is relevant because a business model which depends on their workforce receiving public assistance is not a viable business model in a free market.

given how much money they piss away on employee turnover and the like? Not really. Success in business isn't just how much you make, it's also about throwing money away due to bad policies. It's also about making sure things are god for the future. CEO's used to understand this, it's the source of the old "What's good for GM is good for America" line. What was good for GM is a robust economy, which is also of course good for America. Without a robust economy you can shift things all you want but you're not going to get much in the way of revenue growth and without revenue growth you're pretty well screwed.

If it means that those workers have a better life and perhaps even make enough to afford things at places other than WAL*MART, I'm all for it.

Remember, just because you fap to Ayn Rand doesn't mean that everyone does.

Remember the main success of Wal-mart: keeping prices lower than the competitors (even Target). What most likely will happen is it'll encourage Walmart to cut back and become more automated, and/or perhaps limit hours (converting from 24-hour to limited). That screws with the "graveyard" crowd, and also adds more people to the unemployment line.

WhyteRaven74:clowncar on fire: Let's remove these from the count and decide whether we really have an issue or just manufactured rage.

the more people, regardless of how much they work, you have being paid poorly the less the economy grows over time. What this means is that those who aren't poorly paid will find it harder to have their own incomes grow since without economic growth their own employers won't see much in the way of revenue growth.

Wage increases increase the price of goods which drives down demand also thus staggering the economy. If you can successfully increase wages without decreasing demand, then you have a situation where demand increase (thanks to that larger paycheck) which eventually drives up prices and thus putting low wage earners back where they started but taking out the higher wage earners with them as their dollar no longer has the same buying power due to inflation.

As Ayn Rand taught, God will provide, and if they die, they deserved it.

No. Finish the post. Kids don't really need healthcare coverage because when you live with your parents it's already covered.

Minimum wage earning kids don't buy houses because they live with their mommy and daddy. Most minimum wage earning kids are looking for some scratch for party money, maybe a car, or money for those expensive designer close that mom and dad refuse to buy. My hat goes off to those kids smart enough to be saving for college- let's offer those kids some sort of matching program to be paid out should they enter college.

Minimum wage jobs were never intended to be the end all career. By the very nature of them, the employee should be looking for advancement as a way of wage increase. You choose to remain stagnant in a go nowhere job- don't expect the employer to pick up the tab for your complacency.

Hey ClownCar. You dropped this one. I'll pick it up and finish for you, if I may...

"As Ayn Rand taught, God will provide, and if they die, they deserved it." WHAT! Only a fool would claim that Ayn Rand, the great atheist Ayn Rand, would suggest that a non-existent God could or would provide. You don't know that of which you speak. Citations please, or admit that you just made it up.

Man up on this one. Did Ayn Rand say that or did you lie. I just want the truth.

WhyteRaven74:Popcorn Johnny: It's mind boggling to me that you're trying to put the blame on Walmart instead of the people who have chosen to tread water through life as an unskilled worker.

they've chosen it the same way a passenger on the Titanic chose to hit an iceberg.

From what I've seen of poor people (and note that I grew up on military bases, the son of an enlisted man. Later in life, I managed to live in two different trailer parks, so to say I've no experience would be demonstrably false), most make poor choices. I could save some money and get ahead or I could buy an ATV. I could purchase an economical and reliable used car or an American pick-em-up truck and put expensive as hell tires on it, then let them get to bald. I could take classes and try to get ahead in life or just get drunk each night. I could buy condoms or have a passel of children.

The fact is that many poor people make very poor choices in life. This puts them in a position where they have limited options.

Lucky for me is that my family emphasized hard work, education, and smart choices. I've not been a paragon of those choices, but I'm certainly not doing poorly. In fact, I managed to do what most people here consider impossible - move up a few levels in the social strata. Honestly, it wasn't all that difficult. Good choices, sometimes very hard choices, a bit of luck (mostly defined as being ready when opportunity strikes), and not being an idiot.

You say paying them a "living wage" is charity, but I disagree. If a company needs someone 40 hours a week, be it scrubbing toilets, or saying "hello" to people walking in the door they should be willing to pay them enough to live.

While I don't inherently disagree with this, three things:

1) What if they don't need you 40 hours a week?2) I routinely work 50-60 hours at my job, as do most other people in positions that pay well that I know. What if the pay worked out to "enough to live" at that point?3) How are you defining "enough to live"? I had no problem living on $20,000/year when I was 21. I would have had a problem raising a family on it, so, you know, I didn't, but still. How are we defining this?

red5ish:DrewCurtisJr: I'm saying it is irrelevant because even if the government didn't subsidize the healthcare and food stamps of its employees the wages would be the same, the employees would just be more miserable. The wages are more of a reflection of the conditions of the labor market, when a Walmart opens 5k people apply for 400 positions. Without any leverage wages aren't going to improve.

Would they be more miserable or would they be homeless and/or starving? That aside, it is relevant because a business model which depends on their workforce receiving public assistance is not a viable business model in a free market.

red5ish:Walmart is profitable enough to pay living wages to its employees, keeping them off the dole, but instead choose to pay less and to pocket the extra profit.

I'm pretty sure you are rich enough to feed hundreds of starving African kids, keep them from dying.But instead, you choose to own a computer and pay for Internet access so you can make posts about how other people should give away their money....

given how much money they piss away on employee turnover and the like? Not really. Success in business isn't just how much you make, it's also about throwing money away due to bad policies. It's also about making sure things are god for the future. CEO's used to understand this, it's the source of the old "What's good for GM is good for America" line. What was good for GM is a robust economy, which is also of course good for America. Without a robust economy you can shift things all you want but you're not going to get much in the way of revenue growth and without revenue growth you're pretty well screwed.

If the money they piss away on employee turnover is less than they'd spend on higher wages, then it's a good business decision. Plain and simple.

I live in an area of greater Los Angeles that is still pleasantly free of Walmarts store. Sure, we're inundated with Targets and Best Buys, but it's still nice to know that I would have to go considerably out of my if I wanted to shop at Walmart.

ronaprhys:WhyteRaven74: Popcorn Johnny: It's mind boggling to me that you're trying to put the blame on Walmart instead of the people who have chosen to tread water through life as an unskilled worker.

they've chosen it the same way a passenger on the Titanic chose to hit an iceberg.

From what I've seen of poor people (and note that I grew up on military bases, the son of an enlisted man. Later in life, I managed to live in two different trailer parks, so to say I've no experience would be demonstrably false), most make poor choices. I could save some money and get ahead or I could buy an ATV. I could purchase an economical and reliable used car or an American pick-em-up truck and put expensive as hell tires on it, then let them get to bald. I could take classes and try to get ahead in life or just get drunk each night. I could buy condoms or have a passel of children.

The fact is that many poor people make very poor choices in life. This puts them in a position where they have limited options.

Lucky for me is that my family emphasized hard work, education, and smart choices. I've not been a paragon of those choices, but I'm certainly not doing poorly. In fact, I managed to do what most people here consider impossible - move up a few levels in the social strata. Honestly, it wasn't all that difficult. Good choices, sometimes very hard choices, a bit of luck (mostly defined as being ready when opportunity strikes), and not being an idiot.

THIS^^^^

The poor keep doing the things that make them poor. The rich keep doing the things that make then rich.

jst3p:BarkingUnicorn: red5ish: Walmart is profitable enough to pay living wages to its employees, keeping them off the dole, but instead choose to pay less and to pocket the extra profit. Taxpayers subsidize their business model. I don't see how anybody who dislikes taxes could argue in favor of Walmart's business practices.

Walmart's net profit for the past four quarters was $15.7 billion. Divide that by 2.2 million employees and you get about $7100 each. What percentage of that should go to employees?

Enough so that their full time employees don't need food stamps for starters.

Another thought: the number of dependents in one's household is a big factor in whether you qualify for food stamps. Should an employer pay this woman more than a single guy just because she has five kids and an unemployed hubby?

red5ish:DrewCurtisJr: I'm saying it is irrelevant because even if the government didn't subsidize the healthcare and food stamps of its employees the wages would be the same, the employees would just be more miserable. The wages are more of a reflection of the conditions of the labor market, when a Walmart opens 5k people apply for 400 positions. Without any leverage wages aren't going to improve.

Would they be more miserable or would they be homeless and/or starving? That aside, it is relevant because a business model which depends on their workforce receiving public assistance is not a viable business model in a free market.

But government decreed what the minimum wage should be, and the workers agreed to work for that amount.If that's not a living wage how is that Walmarts problem?

ronaprhys:The fact is that many poor people make very poor choices in life. This puts them in a position where they have limited options.

True, but we can't all be above average. The world needs ditchdiggers too. And they still get angry, depressed, and resentful just like the rest of us. The trick is to keep them happy and healthy enough not to start thinking Second Amendment solutions.